jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/15/85)
. . . > on myself and those who do the purchasing. For the wage police to come > in and say "plumbers are worth $x, systems programmers $y, and janitors > $z" is what we should all fear. > > To suggest that the value of a human being's work is based on some tables > in the government is demeaning. It reduces us to cogs. Deciding value > is (* surprise *) a value judgement, and it should be subjective. I know some clerical staff who would *love* to be demeaned by having an independant authority decide how much they should be paid in general; their pay/conditions could not get much worse than they are now. I'm surprised you think it less demeaning for the value of a human being's work to be based on random market forces or a hiring criterion based on getting the most for the least. > > Inherent in "equal pay for work of equal *value*" is that the state > (not the people) has to assign a value for each human being. No thanks. Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made people/persons who can make such a determination independently and without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be true you know. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 John Chapman
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (07/15/85)
>> >> Inherent in "equal pay for work of equal *value*" is that the state >> (not the people) has to assign a value for each human being. No thanks. > > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be > true you know. You show me one, just one, person that can make such a determination "independently and without prejudice". Such people simply do not exist. Any program whose correct functioning depends on their existence is doomed to failure. Thus, when there are alternative ways of obtaining a goal that do not rely on the existence of such people, such ways should be pursued. Incidently, one could consider the supposition of the existence of such people to be one of the fundamental flaws in communist theory, but that is a completely different kettle of fish. > >> -- >> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 > >John Chapman -bob atkinson watmath!csc
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/17/85)
. . . > > > > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be > > true you know. > > You show me one, just one, person that can make such a determination > "independently and without prejudice". Such people simply do not > exist. Any program whose correct functioning depends on their Instead of just one how about an example of many? Our justice system depends *exactly* on being able to find people who can decide, independently and without prejudice, a situation when presented with the facts. These people are called juries. . . . > > > >John Chapman > > -bob atkinson > watmath!csc John Chapman
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (07/18/85)
>> > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made >> > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and >> > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be >> > true you know. >> >> You show me one, just one, person that can make such a determination >> "independently and without prejudice". Such people simply do not >> exist. Any program whose correct functioning depends on their > > Instead of just one how about an example of many? Our justice system > depends *exactly* on being able to find people who can decide, > independently and without prejudice, a situation when presented > with the facts. These people are called juries. Not true. Juries and judges are the closet approximation to such a group of people that we have been able to find so far. They are human beings just like you and I, and are hence subject to their own prejudices and biases. It so happens that we have yet to find a different kind of institution that can effectively serve the same function as does our legal system, so we put up with it. As I said before, when, in different situations, other alternatives are available, these should be carefully considered. >> >John Chapman >> >> -bob atkinson > > John Chapman -bob atkinson
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/19/85)
> >> > Not at all necessary; what is necessary is that the decision be made > >> > people/persons who can make such a determination independently and > >> > without prejudice. Also it is possible that people == state can be . . > >> You show me one, just one, person that can make such a determination > >> "independently and without prejudice". Such people simply do not > >> exist. Any program whose correct functioning depends on their . . > > Instead of just one how about an example of many? Our justice system > > depends *exactly* on being able to find people who can decide, . . > Not true. Juries and judges are the closet approximation to such a > group of people that we have been able to find so far. They are > human beings just like you and I, and are hence subject to their own > prejudices and biases. It so happens that we have yet to find a different > -bob atkinson Well you guys can nit pick all you want but the fact remains that it is possible to find independant/unprejudiced people to decide almost any issue and have them do a good job; out justice system may be a little slow but the udges and juries seem to generally do a good job. John Chapman
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/21/85)
> Well you guys can nit pick all you want but the fact remains that it > is possible to find independant/unprejudiced people to decide almost > any issue and have them do a good job; out justice system may be > a little slow but the udges and juries seem to generally do a good > job. Oh really? A good job on deciding guilt vs. innocence, I am willing to concede. Generally. A good job on sentencing convicted criminals to something appropriate to the crime, no way. Note that EPFWOEV is a "how much" decision, rather than a "yes or no" decision, akin to sentencing rather than guilt/innocence. I would expect the same pattern to prevail: being nice to the poor guy standing up front, and to hell with the social consequences. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/24/85)
> > any issue and have them do a good job; out justice system may be > > a little slow but the udges and juries seem to generally do a good > > job. > > Oh really? A good job on deciding guilt vs. innocence, I am willing to > concede. Generally. A good job on sentencing convicted criminals to > something appropriate to the crime, no way. > > Note that EPFWOEV is a "how much" decision, rather than a "yes or no" > decision, akin to sentencing rather than guilt/innocence. I would expect > the same pattern to prevail: being nice to the poor guy standing up > front, and to hell with the social consequences. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry I am sure that it is within the power of our society, given the will, to implement EPFWOEV in a reasonable manner - dependant only on being able to find a large enough pool of people to make fair decisions based on a set of rules - the (a) problem with the justice system is the range of choices available in sentencing is too limited; this does not have to be the case with EPFWOEV. I stand by my other example as well. People generally react to the introduction of EPFWOEV laws in the same manner as they do to laws regulating smoking - e.g. "impossible to administer", "too expensive", "abrogates my rights" ad nauseam. Yet San Francisco has shown that these are all straw men (to the point of requiring only one person for 1/2 day per week to adminsiter the entire program for the entire city) because when you get right down to it all that's being said is : behave in a reasonable fair manner or we'll make you behave that way (like any parent to a wilful child); faced with this choice most people find it possible to behave in an acceptable manner without having to have big brother looking over their shoulder. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.